User talk:Fighting for Justice: Difference between revisions

Tidy up

If you make a mistake such as archive box, please tidy up after yourself with {{db-author}}. -- RHaworth 08:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Block

I have blocked both you and User talk:196.15.168.40 for edit warring at David Westerfield. When this block expires, you may discuss changes on the talk page of the article, as it has been protected. If you wish to appeal this block, use {{unblock}}.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Wrestlemania 23

this is going to be so much better than 7, but not as good as 13 or 5, so im not sure if its notable ;) the_undertow ^talk 06:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Removing unreferenced tags

Please do not remove {{unreferenced}} tags, as you did at Ryan White, unless you are prepared to provide references. As I see it, that article has only one source, which is listed at the bottom but which does not in any way indicate what portion of the content comes from that source. That is not acceptable. | Mr. Darcy talk 02:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Steve Moore

Hi Fighting. I get your point regarding Moore's popularity, however the incident was one of the very few incidents in hockey history that resulted in an off-ice investigation and a lengthy ban. I believe it is warranted enough to be included in the article. Please check out the page Wiki_is_not_paper. I am removing your warning after this misunderstanding has been cleared up, but I am putting the information back into the article. If you would like to bring this to Mediation, please leave me a message on my talk page and I'll be glad to help :). Thanks! Kntrabssi 14:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The Steve Moore incident is not indiscriminate information, something such as total goals scored for the franchise would be indiscriminate information. The Steve Moore incident is something important, much like the Marty_McSorley incident and the Boston Bruins. I have class until 5:30, but I will list this at mediation afterwards! Thanks :-) Kntrabssi 13:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Getting back to this, as a member of the cabal (if it exists...), I wish to list there first. If you are unhappy with the results, we can bring it to the more formal mediation. Thanks :) Kntrabssi 00:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi FFJ, I've opened a case with the cabal, you can check it out here.  :)Kntrabssi 03:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Mike Mizanin

My fault, the edit history, the way I read it, showed that you removed a legit picture of Mike Mizanin, I should have gone further back. Please accept my humble apologies for this error. Bmg916^Speak_Sign 02:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Dedrick Owens

I don't care about your personal opinions about Dedrick Owens. What matters is that Wikipedia's policies for biographies of living people is followed. If you reinsert that material or otherwise violate WP:BLP, I will block you per the policy: "Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked." Sarah 06:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

BLP block

I've blocked you for 24 hours for violating BLP after I gave you two clearly and serious warnings that you would be blocked if you persisted. Your first edit to my talk page was fine but your second, in which you went back to assert that a minor was a murderer despite a lack of conviction or charges, was obviously a very clear violation of WP:BLP and WP:POINT. I have no objections to your expression of you opinion of me and if that's what you think, well that's okay. However, what isn't okay is you persisting in violating our policy on biographies under the rather disingenuous pretence of following consensus. You were rather insistent that the anonymous editor follow WP:CON and repeatedly cited it, yet you refuse to follow BLP, our most important content policy. I have only blocked you for a day, please take that as a very serious warning because if you decide to persist further with BLP violations, future blocks will be much longer. This is serious and you need to realise that. Sarah 08:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

hey!

Hi fighting for justice! I'm just wondering if you'd like to team up with me so that we can make the Michael Jackson article a better place. My mission is to cleanse it of garbage, and I'd like it if you would aid me in finding all the negative trash about Michael, in the references and things, and notify me of them. I understand if you're too busy fighting for justice elsewhere in wikipedia, but I really believe that Michael Jackson deserves his article to be non-biased. I still remember that time you agreed with me about the King of Pop heading, and guess what? It's IN!!! That's what hard work and a little determination gets! Cheers, mate!--Paaerduag 11:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Abigail Breslin

She is a child actress. What are you saying she isn't? She will always be a child actress..When she grows up, she will be a former child actress...take a look at other actresses who grew up...they are still considered former child actresses. It is important when a person started acting..some people started acting as a child...Look at Vivien Cardone...it says that she is a child actress too...why can't you be consistent on all of the child actresses articles? You'll gonna have to change everything b/c almost all of it says child actress or actor...

You are so smart...your username just says it all....fighting for justice...that's so great...how you think that children should be just considered actors...i never thought of that...thanks to you...now i know...i'm going to help you change it....i'll do Elle Fanning then...

Have you taken the "Wikipedia:Are You a Wikipediholic Test" test? It's crazy....but funny..I don't think I have the patient to take the test.. (Jessica - talk)

• hmm I see someone else is wondering why you are insistent on removing Child actor from this page. Can you please explain before you revert again - I'd be happy to listen to your reasoning?--VS ^talk 01:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Okay well firstly actress is rather defunct - you'll note that it directs to actor. Secondly whilst I can see your point that she will get older until she does she remains a child actor like so many other child actors. Then later she is referred to as the "former child actor" (have a look at other pages in that category where people way past their childhood are so referred). There is nothing derogatory in using this description. I also note that you are a relatively new editor with a couple of blocks - my point being that you may not be aware of WP:3RR so I ask that you please leave the page alone. Cheers!--VS ^talk 01:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• PS I have put a warning on the page of User talk:69.117.20.128 as it is quite improper for him/her to be so uncivil towards you.--VS ^talk 01:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

AfD category

Maybe I'm missing something here, but what has a hijacking got to do with the internet? Am I just needing to wake up? As I can't see any conection. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

That looks more like it. I assume that was just a mistake, rather than deliberatly categorizing it there in the first place. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey if your going to fix it it's ok. Please go to Vincent's site and update your info. Vincent has released an album, has a new TV animation that he stars in. I didn't know how to do it right. Please fix it. All those awards are real and i felt was important.

thank you,

Michael Jackson wikiproject

Hi, a few people are getting together to start up a Michael Jackson wikiproject, and I thought maybe you'd like to join as well. If you wish to join, please tell me, and go here, then sign up under the participants section. There needs to be as much support as possible. Thanks. By the way, have you heard that MJ's releasing a new album? --Paaerduag 08:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review

Hi. I've added some additional comments to the deletion review on the Shawn Hornbeck and Ben Ownby article. I'd appreciate your taking a look at them as a good deal of what I wrote was intended to respond to the concerns you had expressed. Regards, Newyorkbrad 15:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Did you read anything I wrote before you made your simplistic comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth Smart (abductee)? Do you have any thoughts on the complexities and moral balancing required in addressing these issues, or do you just plan to poke at those of us who are introspecting and dealing with them?

Warning on WP:POINT

This edits appear incongruous. [1][2]. It appears you are using your comments and edits to make a WP:POINT. This is disruptive. Please stop or you may be blocked from editing. --Tbeatty 07:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Since when did wikipedia become a dictatorship? I'm merely expressing my feelings just as everyone else. Why are you trying to suppress me? If we are not going to name Michael Devlin's victims we shouldn't have external links that take people to site which do publish their names. I believe there is sex discrimination in wikipedia. Why should we name a female sex victim, while a male sex victim remains anonymous? The fact that the female is an adult now is moot. She was minor when the incidents happened to her. Wikipedia needs to establish a strict on policy on this, otherwise the same arguments will come up again but with different people. Fighting for Justice 08:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Each article stands on it's own. Disrupting one article because you disagree with the actions on another article is a WP:POINT violation. There are other forums for discussing policy. Using articles to make a point about what you perceive as shortcomings in the policy is a WP:POINT violations. --Tbeatty 08:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

EA 990

Would you be open to a more neutral cause statement for the infobox? The NTSB did not rule that it was a deliberate crash, and so if the investigating body doesn't make that determination, it sounds a bit OR-ish if we, as wikipedians, determine that it was the case. FWIW, I'm with you as far as personal beliefs...I think the weight of the evidence does suggest he did do it deliberately, the problem is that since neither of the governing bodies ruled that, it's a bit improper for us to make that definitive determination in the article. In other words, we can't reference a definitive judgement to that effect, so we shouldn't be making one ourselves. Thanks for considering this. AKRadecki 03:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, and while I understand your perspective, unfortunately, this is getting into the realm of Original Research, which is defined as "The term also applies to any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position". Because the NTSB - nor any authoratative body - has published this conclusion, we can't publish it, either. Unfortunately, your argument also sounds like you're getting a bit close to POV issues, as you're accusing the NTSB of whitewashing things, and then using Wikipedia as a forum to set things straight. Because we're supposed to be neutral, we really can't be going beyond what's published, even if we think its right. I'm wanting to assume good faith on your part, but your efforts to go beyond what is published, plus your user name and your stated mission on your user page give the appearances that you're advocating for a certain point of view. You might want to consider that so that you don't get accused of things that you're not trying to do. Thanks again for considering this input. AKRadecki 14:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

You are in the wrong place

Your edit history and especially your comments indicate that you are on a mission to Right Great Wrongs. You need to find a victim activist website as an outlet for this activity. Wikipedia is not the place for activism. Guy (Help!) 08:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

FfJ, you're also dangerously close to violating the WP:3RR. Since you've been blocked once for it, and once for BLP, you should already be aware of this. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 08:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

• This edit [3] is emblematic of the problem. You seem to believe that debates about interpretation of Wikipedia policy imply taking sides in the external public debate, which is simply not true - the suggestion that an interpretation of policy places one on the side of a child abductor is wholly unacceptable, and whether that was what you intended or not you must take greater care never to use words which permit of such an interpretation. Guy (Help!) 15:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Rudeness

Hi. I'm a little upset that you unloaded on me in this edit. I made an honest assessment of White's notability, so I would appreciate it if you would assume good faith that I did so, and I made an honest opinion about it. I doubt that expressing an opinion, even a contrary one, will "bring Wikipedia down". Please read our civility policy and reconsider your remarks. --Dhartung | Talk 06:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Assuming that my DRV comment was "snide" or directed at you personally shows a marked failure to assume good faith. I don't know who you are, but now I think you're somebody with a chip on your shoulder and a tendency to go off on people who disagree with you. Congratulations, you've moved up from non-entity. If you start a deletion review you had better expect that some people will disagree with you and have a better way to handle it when it happens -- that's my advice. You may take it, or not. If you want a personal dialog with me about the meaning or consequences of notability, you're welcome to start one. --Dhartung | Talk 06:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Re : Timmy White

Consensus on the article was a keep, determined by the general sentiment of the article in question. If you're proposing a merge, no deletion process is required, simply transfer all the information to the destination article and redirect. It is highly recommended that you seek consensus before doing any merge though. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 09:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Michael Jackson Wikiproject

Hello, I have just created this. You can visit the project page here and join here.UberCryxic 03:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Bashkirian Airlines Flight 2937 // WP:ENGVAR#National_varieties_of_English

We r held by WP:ENGVAR#National_varieties_of_English to "consistency within articles". So "smouldering" is the correct spelling in this case (source: [4]; [5]). Of course "smoldering" is the correct spelling in american english... But in this article we use for some reason british spelling (maybe because the incident happened in Europe). Changing the spelling to american in the whole article is not a good idea, too... Thx. --Homer Landskirty 10:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Since we do not write "maneuvers", we write "smouldering"... For consistency purposes... Read: WP:ENGVAR#National_varieties_of_English --Homer Landskirty 21:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Bashkirian Airlines Flight 2937. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors.

Please don't repeatedly change spelling from one variety to another. It annoys people and is a waste of everybody's time. Thank you. --John 01:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

July 2007

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Chris Benoit, you will be blocked from editing. Do not post inflammatory, unencyclopedic and intentionally POV edits. Trusilver 00:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Lindsey Shaw

I think that should be there somewhere because I met Devon and he told me. MAJ5 ^(talk) _(contribs) 13:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Ryan Sheckler

No worries. I'm glad you explained. I'm happy to remove my earlier message.Professor marginalia 03:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Devon Werkheiser

Hello, I put back the revision you removed, the source that you said was removed was not -- it was just moved to the new section of the article (Music Career). I took the liberty of putting that back and adding some more cited information to that section. -filmation

Outing

Outing rape victims is not supporting them or their loved ones. See this page, any unsourced claims must be removed and if you have returned any unsourced rape victim claims that will be reported. far from trolling I am trying to protect victims and their families from the trolling of the person who created the category and their supporters, SqueakBox 20:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)